Sportscene Highlights

[jambo-in-furness]

9 hours ago, saxondale said:

 

Arms don't come into the equation. Only shoulders.

 

It's offside.

The position of Scales foot is hidden by the Celtic players shoulder therefore there is not a clear picture that shows Shanks is offside,  the onfield decision stands as I understand happens in England.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

The line looks squint, surely should be parallel to the 18 yard line? Anyway who cares, didn't matter

[cheetah]

9 hours ago, cazzyy said:

 

If I laid that picture next to a Blondie album there would only be one thing that had anything to do with parallel lines on it.

To be clear, no way are those coloured lines at the same angle as the 18 yard line even allowing for a natural differentiation.

 

9 hours ago, brownkg said:

and the angle of the lines?

  Just measured the distance between the offside line and the 18 yard line at both corners of the box, the gap nearest us in the photo is 1.68 times wider than the other side, so defo not straight or correct. 

[Nookie Bear]

9 hours ago, WheatfieldWarrior said:

 

Talbot accepted the offer of a 2 match ban.  Yang should get the same. 

 

he should have been jailed for two years let alone banned.

[saxondale]

9 hours ago, brownkg said:

and the angle of the lines?

 

What gives you the impression the angle of the lines are wrong?

[saxondale]

14 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

The position of Scales foot is hidden by the Celtic players shoulder therefore there is not a clear picture that shows Shanks is offside,  the onfield decision stands as I understand happens in England.

 

You're seeing what you want to see. And if the shoulder is hiding the player's foot, then the foot is not going to be further than the shoulder (otherwise it would be sticking out, and not hidden).

 

It's offside, let it go.

[McCrae]

50 minutes ago, saxondale said:

 

You're seeing what you want to see. And if the shoulder is hiding the player's foot, then the foot is not going to be further than the shoulder (otherwise it would be sticking out, and not hidden).

 

It's offside, let it go.

Under the rules it was offside. The problem is the rule.

[feedthefox]

2 hours ago, jamboozy said:

 

They are masters of Glasgow propaganda. There are numerous times when you watch their‘Highlights’ they are skewed to suit once side of the Glasgow divide or the other.

    If I hadn’t seen it for my own eyes you would think we had been under the cosh for 90 odd minutes.

 

(On this occasion) as pleasing as it was to those of us there I'm not sure the viewers would want 15mins of us passing ball side to side. Think the Sportscene coverage pretty much captured what can be described as the highlights.

[saxondale]

12 minutes ago, McCrae said:

Under the rules it was offside. The problem is the rule.

 

What's the issue with the rule, and what should change?

[I P Knightley]

12 hours ago, Chuck Berry said:

 

This. Intent or force is immaterial, he had his boot head height and it connected with Cochranes head on the way back down! It was endangering an opponent and both Beaton on VAR and Robertson agreed.  There's no debate to be had, I think Boyd on Sky was the only one to say so.

 

That said both penalties are never penalties, although the standard has been set this season for hand ball (wrongly IMO) so in reality it was always going to be given.

Zackley. It's to do with minimising risk of head/eye injury and the boot should never be that high in the air .

 

It's interesting to think of the handball in light of reading the full text of the law. That text allows for the same contact occurring at the other end of the pitch. Had the ball hit an attacking player in the arm, without him looking at it or really realising it was there; and had that contact changed the direction of the ball, effectively flicking it, into the net; would allowing a goal be the right result? 

 

There's no doubt it was accidental and you can see that the contact changed the direction in which the ball was travelling so a handball shout is completely reasonable. 

 

 

12 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Anyone else notice the weird pronunciation of Niewinhof.

Noye-venn-hoof? 

 

Reminded me of this sketch by Alistair McGowan. 

 

 

[Wee Mikey]

13 minutes ago, saxondale said:

What's the issue with the rule, and what should change?

 

The rule is supposed to be one that rules out an attacker gaining an unfair advantage.

 

In my opinion, and that of others, there have been too many (excellent) goals ruled offside on the basis of a toe or sliver of shoulder being ahead of lines that in themselves are questionable.

 

Those lines photos should be shown in conjunction With the corresponding one showing when the ball was played forward.

 

Shankland yesterday was in no way gaining an advantage, in my opinion.

 

What to do about it? I'll leave that to the experts but I'd be surprised if it's not being looked at.

[jambo-in-furness]

1 hour ago, saxondale said:

 

You're seeing what you want to see. And if the shoulder is hiding the player's foot, then the foot is not going to be further than the shoulder (otherwise it would be sticking out, and not hidden).

 

It's offside, let it go.

But, the line is drawn at that Celtic players hip, not his shoulder, look at it again, the shoulder is in line with Shanklands foot

[Dazo]

Just now, jambo-in-furness said:

But, the line is drawn at that Celtic players hip, not his shoulder, look at it again, the shoulder is in line with Shanklands foot

I think that’s fair. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have been offside but it does look like the Celtic line was taken from the wrong spot. 

[saxondale]

11 minutes ago, Wee Mikey said:

 

The rule is supposed to be one that rules out an attacker gaining an unfair advantage.

 

In my opinion, and that of others, there have been too many (excellent) goals ruled offside on the basis of a toe or sliver of shoulder being ahead of lines that in themselves are questionable.

 

Those lines photos should be shown in conjunction With the corresponding one showing when the ball was played forward.

 

Shankland yesterday was in no way gaining an advantage, in my opinion.

 

What to do about it? I'll leave that to the experts but I'd be surprised if it's not being looked at.

 

I agree that I want to see less goals ruled offside for a toe or shoulder being beyond the last man, but in my opinion it's not possible to create a rule for that as its subjective and inconsistent. 

 

For the offside rule, it has to be black and white and therefore onside or offside regardless of how close it was. Otherwise decisions will not be consistent, which is what most players and fans want.

 

I'd be fine for a line to be shown when ball was played, but doubt that will much, if any, difference.

[saxondale]

6 minutes ago, jambo-in-furness said:

But, the line is drawn at that Celtic players hip, not his shoulder, look at it again, the shoulder is in line with Shanklands foot

 

Like I've said, you're seeing what you want to see.

 

I've looked at it multiple times and the line drawn looks fine. And looks like it is in line with celtic player's shoulder (or foot) which is further back than the other celtic player's hip. 

 

As hard as it is to accept, Shankland's should is definitely beyond the last man.

[neilnunb]

Noticed on the highlights you can see Iwata applauding when Celtic were awarded their penalty...

 

Shame you then conceded one, prick. Karma. 🤣🤣🤣

[TheBigO]

3 minutes ago, saxondale said:

 

Like I've said, you're seeing what you want to see.

 

I've looked at it multiple times and the line drawn looks fine. And looks like it is in line with celtic player's shoulder (or foot) which is further back than the other celtic player's hip. 

 

As hard as it is to accept, Shankland's should is definitely beyond the last man.

It was offside.  I actually thought it was on first replay before the commentators realised there'd be a VAR (unfortunately had to watch on telly yesterday).  It's off.  Tight, but off.

 

On the general refereeing.  There were three subjective calls.  Two were borderline "by the laws of the game" type ones, and the other was a very very easy and obvious dive.  The ref got one completely incorrect, and the other two are at best grey areas and the call could go either way, but if you're being strict both were correct.  And it can be painted any way the media and Celtic want, but the only decision which was WRONG all game was the Celtic penalty.

 

I would add the foul on Tait was a shocker.  It was one where when they showed the replay, I actually let out an "oh ya ****er".  It should have gone to VAR.  So there's another subjective one and this time leniancy.

 

In the last season I can think of the St Mirren sending off against Celtic being a good example of the rule, but also the Youan sending off against Rangers, which was way way more ridic than the one yesterday

[wavydavy]

Is Rodgers going to get a call to appear before the SFA to explain his outburst about the officiating yesterday?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68462775

[Deevers]

1 minute ago, wavydavy said:

Is Rodgers going to get a call to appear before the SFA to explain his outburst about the officiating yesterday?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68462775

Well that will be interesting - others have been ordered in to explain themselves and been fined for the same sort of stuff.  It must be tough for Celtic and Rangers when the calls go against them. They are so used to having officials in their back pockets.  He should go away and dry his eyes.

[wavydavy]

1 minute ago, TheBigO said:

It was offside.  I actually thought it was on first replay before the commentators realised there'd be a VAR (unfortunately had to watch on telly yesterday).  It's off.  Tight, but off.

 

On the general refereeing.  There were three subjective calls.  Two were borderline "by the laws of the game" type ones, and the other was a very very easy and obvious dive.  The ref got one completely incorrect, and the other two are at best grey areas and the call could go either way, but if you're being strict both were correct.  And it can be painted any way the media and Celtic want, but the only decision which was WRONG all game was the Celtic penalty.

 

I would add the foul on Tait was a shocker.  It was one where when they showed the replay, I actually let out an "oh ya ****er".  It should have gone to VAR.  So there's another subjective one and this time leniancy.

 

In the last season I can think of the St Mirren sending off against Celtic being a good example of the rule, but also the Youan sending off against Rangers, which was way way more ridic than the one yesterday

 

These are the sort of decisions that usually go for the old firm week after week and the other 10 teams in the league suffer as a result.

 

The odd time it happens to them then all hell breaks loose in the Media sympathising with them.

 

They don't like it when it happens to them. Maybe now they will see what all the other clubs are faced with most weeks.

[saxondale]

6 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

It was offside.  I actually thought it was on first replay before the commentators realised there'd be a VAR (unfortunately had to watch on telly yesterday).  It's off.  Tight, but off.

 

On the general refereeing.  There were three subjective calls.  Two were borderline "by the laws of the game" type ones, and the other was a very very easy and obvious dive.  The ref got one completely incorrect, and the other two are at best grey areas and the call could go either way, but if you're being strict both were correct.  And it can be painted any way the media and Celtic want, but the only decision which was WRONG all game was the Celtic penalty.

 

I would add the foul on Tait was a shocker.  It was one where when they showed the replay, I actually let out an "oh ya ****er".  It should have gone to VAR.  So there's another subjective one and this time leniancy.

 

In the last season I can think of the St Mirren sending off against Celtic being a good example of the rule, but also the Youan sending off against Rangers, which was way way more ridic than the one yesterday

 

Completely agree with everything you've said.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Going back to Sportscene I watched the show last night on iplayer. You would have been forgiven thinking the match commentary was just direct from Selleck TV. Utterly bizarre

[wavydavy]

4 minutes ago, Deevers said:

Well that will be interesting - others have been ordered in to explain themselves and been fined for the same sort of stuff.  It must be tough for Celtic and Rangers when the calls go against them. They are so used to having officials in their back pockets.  He should go away and dry his eyes.

 

He will certainly get the support of the vast majority of the media.

 

I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear Neil McCann talking pitchside on the Sportscene highlights last night and almost sympathizing with Celtic having a man sent off.

 

The rules are the rules and if they are broken then no amount of spin can change them. The fact that there was no intent or major force used in making contact witrh Cochranes head is irrelevant and they know that but because it is the old firm involved they have to stick up for each other when they don't get what they want.

[wavydavy]

2 minutes ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

Going back to Sportscene I watched the show last night on iplayer. You would have been forgiven thinking the match commentary was just direct from Selleck TV. Utterly bizarre

 

What an absolute roaster he was. Where on earth did they dig him up from. I thought it was Peter Grant at first but it was some other Celitc supporting ignoramus.

[Jarhead]

Does anyone have a clip of the foul on Tait?

 

[Pasquale for King]

They shouldn’t have had a penalty, definitely a red card. Our penalty was with the rules as they are today. Thats the consensus of opinion of neutrals. 

[Jim_Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

They shouldn’t have had a penalty, definitely a red card. Our penalty was with the rules as they are today. Thats the consensus of opinion of neutrals. 

It’s as simple as that. Why folk are saying our penalty was soft I don’t understand. 

[The Goalscoring Knee]

17 minutes ago, Jarhead said:

Does anyone have a clip of the foul on Tait?

It's on the Tait - Gorgie rules thread, mate (as is a clip of his retribution )

[wavydavy]

18 minutes ago, Jarhead said:

Does anyone have a clip of the foul on Tait?

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

39 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

What an absolute roaster he was. Where on earth did they dig him up from. I thought it was Peter Grant at first but it was some other Celitc supporting ignoramus.

It was awful 

[Shooter McGavin]

Apparently kicking an opponent in the face isn’t a red card.

 

Glasgow.

[robroy1874]

Watched it again this morning - what an absolute biased idiot that commentator was - "only hit his shoulder" !! Clearly hit him on the forehead. Think it was Mark Wilson - ex-Celtic?  

[Ferryjambo99]

20 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

Gets away with a yellow as the point of contact is on top of the foot rather than above the ankle. However given the speed of the challenge I imagine a red card would be supported too

[jamboozy]

2 hours ago, feedthefox said:

 

(On this occasion) as pleasing as it was to those of us there I'm not sure the viewers would want 15mins of us passing ball side to side. Think the Sportscene coverage pretty much captured what can be described as the highlights.

They pretty much show more of Rangers and Celtics side to side passing, that’s the whole point, it shows a skewed version of events, in my opinion of course.👍

[132goals1958]

1 minute ago, robroy1874 said:

Watched it again this morning - what an absolute biased idiot that commentator was - "only hit his shoulder" !! Clearly hit him on the forehead. Think it was Mark Wilson - ex-Celtic?  

 

Just watched it. Wilson clutching at straws suggesting the 2nd goal might be checked for offside. 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Glamorgan Jambo said:

Going back to Sportscene I watched the show last night on iplayer. You would have been forgiven thinking the match commentary was just direct from Selleck TV. Utterly bizarre

That was the worst celtic leaning commentary since the behind closed doors cup final.

[PortyJambo]

59 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

The rules are the rules and if they are broken then no amount of spin can change them. The fact that there was no intent or major force used in making contact witrh Cochranes head is irrelevant and they know that but because it is the old firm involved they have to stick up for each other when they don't get what they want.

It annoys the hell out or me when commentators don't know the rules. Hartson is one of the worst for it when he's commentating on Celtic's European games. There should be a rule quiz they need to sit before getting the gig, otherwise they're as well just asking a fan up to commentate....which they are doing with Rangers and Celtic tbh.

[vegas-voss]

It's the a analysis that gets me.Whenever Celtic or Rangers win it's nearly half a show gushing over them even if it's a shitty one nil.They lose and it's 5 mins tops.

[OTT]

14 hours ago, brownkg said:

as i mentioned earlier and no celtic player's arms not figure in the decision

 

How strict the offsides are really doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. Shankland looks perfectly in line with Scales. His feet placement is mirroring Scales. If Scales hand doesn't count, I really don't think the striker should be given the benefit of the doubt there. 

 

We got the right result, in terms of winning the game but its disappointing that a really good goal was chopped off based on millimeters that offer no discernible advantage. Big difference between that and the Idah offside which was miles off and a clear advantage. 

 

Edit: if it had been given, I don't think anyone would have reasonably complained because its unclear. 

Edited March 4 by OTT

[Sinbad the Sailor]

So Sportscene goes on about the refereeing. FFS no mention of Hearts having McKay Boyce Halkett Oda Kent and Vargas injured SIX and still beating Smelltic. 

 

We never get the credit.

[henryheart]

1 hour ago, Pasquale for King said:

They shouldn’t have had a penalty, definitely a red card. Our penalty was with the rules as they are today. Thats the consensus of opinion of neutrals. 

 

Correct. I see that Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports ref watch said that the Celtic penalty was wrong and that the sending off and Hearts penalty were both correct. 

[henryheart]

1 minute ago, henryheart said:

 

Correct. I see that Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports ref watch said that the Celtic penalty was wrong and that the sending off and Hearts penalty were both correct. 

 ..... and by the way, our penalty against Hibs was also the correct decision. Vargas was in possession of the ball and was in front of the Hibs player who impeded him from behind.  

[OTT]

47 minutes ago, Ferryjambo99 said:

 

Gets away with a yellow as the point of contact is on top of the foot rather than above the ankle. However given the speed of the challenge I imagine a red card would be supported too

 

Considering that player safety gets dragged out as an excuse for soft red cards - Killie player against Hibs IIRC? This should have been a straight red. Its a petulant foul out of frustration, but he's went in dangerously, the scissor motion with his trailing leg. 

 

If he'd walked, I don't think anyone could have reasonably complained. 

[OTT]

Saw this on Reddit  

 

[brownkg]

18 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

How strict the offsides are really doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. Shankland looks perfectly in line with Scales. His feet placement is mirroring Scales. If Scales hand doesn't count, I really don't think the striker should be given the benefit of the doubt there. 

 

We got the right result, in terms of winning the game but its disappointing that a really good goal was chopped off based on millimeters that offer no discernible advantage. Big difference between that and the Idah offside which was miles off and a clear advantage. 

 

Edit: if it had been given, I don't think anyone would have reasonably complained because its unclear. 

If the grass lines and the 18 yard line are given as straight then the  offside lines look to me as if they are skewed to the right by at least 10 degrees

[vegas-voss]

I know he is at the wind up to Celtic fans but Kris Boyd is the only one I have heard have a go at Rodgers for being perfectly happy with Celtics penalty award.

[saxondale]

22 minutes ago, OTT said:

Saw this on Reddit  

 

 

🤣 class

[LarrysRightFoot]

40 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

How strict the offsides are really doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. Shankland looks perfectly in line with Scales. His feet placement is mirroring Scales. If Scales hand doesn't count, I really don't think the striker should be given the benefit of the doubt there. 

 

We got the right result, in terms of winning the game but its disappointing that a really good goal was chopped off based on millimeters that offer no discernible advantage. Big difference between that and the Idah offside which was miles off and a clear advantage. 

 

Edit: if it had been given, I don't think anyone would have reasonably complained because its unclear. 

Correct. Offside was never meant to be a science - it was introduced to stop poaching or players deliberately gaining an unfair advantage. 
 

It’s true application would be to stop what Kyogo was doing last season not instances like Shankland’s goal. 

[Deevers]

2 hours ago, wavydavy said:

 

He will certainly get the support of the vast majority of the media.

 

I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear Neil McCann talking pitchside on the Sportscene highlights last night and almost sympathizing with Celtic having a man sent off.

 

The rules are the rules and if they are broken then no amount of spin can change them. The fact that there was no intent or major force used in making contact witrh Cochranes head is irrelevant and they know that but because it is the old firm involved they have to stick up for each other when they don't get what they want.

Yep, you are right about the media. Funny how they sit on their hands and remain silent about the trail of hellish refereeing and VAR decisions that go the way of either side of the Old Firm week in, week out. Looking at the decisions he’s moaning about all of them were technically correct.  Now the penalty Celtic got was actually a shocker I notice he didn’t make any comment about that. We’ll see if done powers that be have any balls when it comes to dealing with him.  I think we’ll just hear the carpet being lifted and the sound of the sweeping brush.

Edited March 4 by Deevers

[Ricardo Quaresma]

5 hours ago, cazzyy said:

 

There's more of a shift than there should be imo, having said that I'm prepared to accept he was off.

 

If you're implying that that their process needs looked into, I don't disagree

 

The radial lines should be on there, transparent orange or something